Is it time for gun owners to pay for their damage?

1. 66

   maddotposted 11 years ago

   Is it time for gun owners to pay for their damage?
   
   Gun shot wounds cost about $2.5 billion a year. Taxpayers pick up about $1.1 billion of this tab. Gun shot wounds are a major burden on the US health care system. Is it time for gun owners to pay for their damage?

   replyreport
2. 78

   JimTxMillerposted 11 years ago

   No more nor less so than smokers, over eaters, drivers, boaters, golfers, etc.....

   replyreport
3. 79

   junksellerposted 11 years ago

   California just proposed a bill that would require gun owners to get liability insurance. Interesting idea but it still wouldn't really punish someone who illegally had a weapon and used it in a crime.
   
   I kind of like the idea of fining manufacturers. If an unregistered gun is used in a crime, the manufacturer pays for the damage. If an unregistered gun is used in a homicide, fine the manufacturer a million dollars or so.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      And this is what passes for "common sense" amoung the anti-firearm crowd. No wonder they have lost in the public opinion, the courts and the legislatures.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah...and we should fine all the automakers and the UAW every time someone with a suspended license finds his way behind the wheel of a car.  Or for that matter every time someone speeds and causes an accident since the car can go faster than 70 mph

      replyreport
   3. 79

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Actually I think manufacturers would be pretty good at registering and keeping track of guns. I didn't say I'd actually do it, but it is at least a proposed solution. The pro-gun side has offered nothing so really is in no position to complain.

      replyreport
   4. 77

      stclairjackposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      hard to argue with the fact that the NRA and Rabid pro-gun lobby realy has offered up nothing,... and i'm pro-gun,.. and i'm the 1st to admit that all the pro-gun side has offered is the word "NO"

      replyreport
   5. 78

      Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The "pro gun": side has offered up the radical solution of punishing those who offend and hurt the innocent. I know that some of you consider this a "non starter" since it actually requires people to be responsible for their own actions

      replyreport
   6. 79

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Guns do end up in the hands of people who should not have them. People or organizations along that transfer chain should be held "responsible for their actions." That is what registration would allow for. That's the point.

      replyreport
   7. 78

      Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Calif. has full registration. Calif has some of the highest crime rates in the country. Same with Chicago. Junk would have the maker of  seat belt material for a car be responsible for the drunk driver who kills an innocent. And this is "reasonable."

      replyreport
   8. 79

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Jack, I said nothing about registration impacting crime rates. I said nothing about automobiles. I said nothing about reasonable, but yes many people do find registration to be perfectly reasonable. Deal with it.

      replyreport
   9. 78

      Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Of course, they can't actually justify with logic or reason why registration is "reasonable" but it makes them ffeeelll ggoodd to call for it.  Some people search for Bigfoot, others for the Loch Ness serpent, and some for gun registration rationals.

      replyreport
   10. 79

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       My justification was posted a few comments up. No one is searching for a rational. You are just ignoring it and posting some creepy comments about the Lochness monster making you feel good. No one is interested in what you do with your gun in private

       replyreport
   11. 78

       Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Here's his "justification." Ed shoots a man with a gun he stole from Bob, who bought the gun from Sam 3 years ago, who bought the gun from Sue's Gun Shop 9 years ago. Junk wants registration so Bob, Sam and Sue can be charged money for Fred's crime.

       replyreport
   12. 79

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       If Bob properly secured his weapon and immediately reported it stolen than he did nothing wrong. Fred, who stole it and committed the crime would be fully responsible. You are once again inventing arguments I haven't made.

       replyreport
   13. 78

       Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       We do have scroll back, junk, and that is not what you posted earlier. Besides, I don't know very many people who leave their guns laying about on lawns, sidewalks and street corners for anyone to steal. Do you really think this is a problem?

       replyreport
   14. 79

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I talked about holding people accountable for their actions. If no wrong action occurred (e.g. improperly securing or transferring weapon) than there is no action to hold accountable. You brought up theft, not me, but yes, proper storage is an issue.

       replyreport
   15. 78

       Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I guess it was some other Junk who wanted to fine those who had nothing to do with the gun's misuse in a crime a "million dollars." My bad...
       
       Then again, upon further reflection (and scroll back) I find out it really was ~you.~ What a surprise.

       replyreport
   16. 79

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The point of the threat of a fine would be to induce manufactures to implement an effective registration system. They would rarely, if ever, actually be fined. It isn't surprising that you don't understand a relatively simple policy strategy.

       replyreport
   17. 78

       Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Passing a law threatening a law abiding company on an issue that they have absolutely no control over once the gun leaves their building and never enforcing the law  regardless is "common sense" gun control? We can't make this type of nonsense up,

       replyreport
   18. 79

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It's a simple idea to develop a registration system. Your dramatics, name-calling, and inventing stuff I supposedly said don't change that. Do you have something rational at all to say about the idea or not? Your spastics really aren't of interest.

       replyreport
   19. 78

       Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Junk can't actually lay out a simple, workable idea for a registration system run by the manufacturers that will actually do what he says. But he can post about it all day long, eh. And then blame others when we point out his obvious failings.

       replyreport
   20. 79

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The point isn't to actually develop the system. The point would be to incentivize the development of a system by manufacturers. I think that is pretty clear. So again, do you have an actual thought about the idea or just more insults?

       replyreport
   21. 78

       Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       as noted.... junk really can't come up with his supposed "simple" system that is actually workable. But it sure is a common sense solution, eh. And he has to blame me for pointing out his inability. :-)

       replyreport
   22. 79

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The idea is to provide the incentive for someone ELSE to develop the system. I can't be any clearer than that. You are still evidently talking to an imaginary person in your head.

       replyreport
   23. 78

       Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       junk is all hat and no cattle. He understands that his idea is totally unreasonable so he passes the responsibility for somehow making it "reasonable" to another party. And this is "common sense" gun control at its finest.

       replyreport
   24. 79

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I obviously don't find my own idea unreasonable and never said anything about passing responsibility, so I still have no idea who you are talking to.

       replyreport
   25. 78

       Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       That's okay, junk.... we understand.

       replyreport
4. 78

   Jack Burtonposted 11 years ago

   80,000,000 gun owners. About 10,000 murders with a gun each year. Maddot thinks that the 79,990,000 gun owners who did absolutely nothing wrong with their firearms should pay for the crimes of the .00001 percent who did. And this is considered "common sense" gun regulations, eh.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      maddotposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I just asked a question..I did not make a statement. I'm interested in what you have to say..thanks for taking the time to comment.

      replyreport
   2. 72

      lburmasterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Love the statistics

      replyreport
5. 77

   stclairjackposted 11 years ago

   while we're at it,.. lets get the condom manufactures of the world to pay for marriage counseling and divorce lawyers,.... cause if your going to punish those who use a product properly,... by charging them for the expenses for those who use the product for ill intent,.... then you might as well charge the Trojan man with adultery.

   replyreport
6. 60

   duffsmomposted 11 years ago

   No. I have caused no damage with my gun, rifle etc.  Should everyone who owns a car pay for all of the car accidents that irresponsible drivers have? Hardly.

   replyreport
7. 72

   lburmasterposted 11 years ago

   I think the person who shot the gun should pay for the wound, not all gun owners everywhere. Otherwise, my taxes are going up...

   replyreport
8. 63

   CrescentSkiesposted 11 years ago

   Nice ad hoc fallacy. So because I own a gun I'm responsible for all the people who shoot innocents with them? Ridiculous. Come to think of it you probably own a kitchen knife, there are lots of people in hospitals for stab wounds.
   Pay up.

   replyreport
9. 85

   Express10posted 11 years ago

   Only those who cause the damage should be held accountable for their actions no matter what the situation is, gun related or not.

   replyreport
10. 56

    Alberic Oposted 11 years ago

    If I lose my firearms (not stolen) and they were use in a crime, I can be held liable in a civil case.
    
    If I give my firearms to my buddy who then uses it in a crime and injures/kills someone, I can be held liable even if I didn't know or didn't conspire with him.
    
    If I carelessly leave my firearms about and someone shoots themselves, I will be put in jail and fined.
    
    When I buy firearms I pay extra taxes (to pay for background checks and paper work for the state) in addition to sales tax. That I am fine with. What I am not fine with is punishing someone who didn't commit a crime. I didn't shoot anyone, and my firearms are all accounted for. When I transport firearms and ammo, I open/conceal carry to ensure my firearms don't get stolen. So no.
    
    Health care costs are high because of the following:
    1. Inefficient/unnecessary health services.
    2. Administrative wastes in health care.
    3. Medicare fraud.
    4. Lack in preventive health (no incentive to be healthy).

    replyreport